• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to GOP: I’m done negotiating with myself

The majority of the country didn't need to read that article to know that most of country's wealth is concentrated at the top.

Yes, i think we would agree that most of the country's wealth is not concentrated at the bottom.
 
Now wealth...you are aware FIT AND FICA are applied based on INCOME not wealth right?


Ah, you choose to ignore wealth inequality. Very well, let's look at income inequality:

"Income inequality has soared to the highest levels since the Great Depression and the recession has done little to reverse the trend, with the top 1 percent of earners taking 93 percent of the income gains in the first full year of the recovery, The New York Times reported in October 2012."

Income Inequality News - The New York Times
 
Ah, you choose to ignore wealth inequality. Very well, let's look at income inequality:

"Income inequality has soared to the highest levels since the Great Depression and the recession has done little to reverse the trend, with the top 1 percent of earners taking 93 percent of the income gains in the first full year of the recovery, The New York Times reported in October 2012."

Income Inequality News - The New York Times

Ok, so there is a wealth equality gap AND an income equality gap, always has been always will be. How does this prove that those who are NOT at the top of the income scale cannot afford to pay more taxes? And more importantly why should they not? While you can argue they are not benefiting as much as a high earner they ARE benefiting some...and they should pay for this...and since the cost is/has been going up they should pay some more for their 'fair share'...
 
Ok, so there is a wealth equality gap AND an income equality gap. How does this prove that those who are NOT at the top of the income scale cannot afford to pay more taxes? And more importantly why should they not? While you can argue they are not benefiting as much as a high earner they ARE benefiting some...and they should pay for this...and since the cost is/has been going up they should pay some more for their 'fair share'...

More revenues are needed to repay the money borrowed from SS recipients. Half the country have nothing left to give. That only leaves the tax cuts for the wealthy that are due to expire. There has to be a cut off line somewhere. I would argue that a 4% tax increase is not a hardship for a household earning more than #250,000.
 
More revenues are needed to repay the money borrowed from SS recipients. Half the country have nothing left to give. That only leaves the tax cuts for the wealthy that are due to expire. There has to be a cut off line somewhere. I would argue that a 4% tax increase is not a hardship for a household earning more than #250,000.

So, uh, the President's current plan is to increase the top bracket 4% and put it in the SS 'lock box'? Sorry I've missed that proposal can you furnish some link to establish this assertion?
 
So, uh, the President's current plan is to increase the top bracket 4% and put it in the SS 'lock box'? Sorry I've missed that proposal can you furnish some link to establish this assertion?

I think a "lock box" would be a good idea but is a separate issue from our obligation to repay the money that was borrowed from SS.
 
How can you possibly be confused? Taxing the rich will have no real effect on government spending or balancing a budget or lowering the debt. And "even if" the government was to seize all the monies of the rich it would still not solve the problem. What's confusing about that?
.

Of course it wouldn't solve the problem, just like changing the payout calculations for social security wouldnt' solve the problem, or cutting discretionary spending budgets etc.

What "miniscule cuts are those? The government is spending well over $1,000,000,000,000 each year than they are bringing in. How can this be resolved with "miniscule cuts"?
well the obvious would be economic growth. Governments revenue goes down and spending goes up during a recession. Shocking I know? Slashing budgets sure as hell won't solve our core problem which is high unemployment. In fact these fiscal cliffs and debt ceiling showdowns have if anything made the situation worse.

But at that time Americans were willing to work and not become dependent on Government. I often here that excuse but the Americans of yesterday are significantly different from the Americans of today. keep in mind that the American government is also over $70,000,000,000,000 in debt for the programs promised to seniors, etc. Where will that money be coming from?
That's about as meaningful as say you're 800,000 dollars in debt because of the food you're going to eat for the rest of your life. Meaningless statstic.

You had better become accustomed to living in a permanent recession. It cannot improve unless sacrifices are made and Americans have demonstrated that they don't have the stomach for that.
Yes, the reason for the recession is Social Security and Medicare which magically was introduced in 2008.

Barrack Obama has had budgets suggested to him and he has refused. he has submitted budgets and they were unanimously rejected by both parties and independents. As i understand this not coming up with a budget is also unconstitutional. Just when Americans required leadership they choose BHO to continue to do his thing, whatever that is. I do have a great deal of sympathy for those honest hardworking Americans but they are becoming the minority in this ongoing gender warfare, class warfare, State warfare and the race warfare of this new America.
He does submit budgets but a bill outlawing puppy abuse couldn't pass in this Congress.
 
Of course it wouldn't solve the problem, just like changing the payout calculations for social security wouldnt' solve the problem, or cutting discretionary spending budgets etc.

Then why bother? Why this controversy?

well the obvious would be economic growth. Governments revenue goes down and spending goes up during a recession. Shocking I know? Slashing budgets sure as hell won't solve our core problem which is high unemployment. In fact these fiscal cliffs and debt ceiling showdowns have if anything made the situation worse.

But there is no economic growth, just increasing debt. More rules and regulations, higher taxes and labor mean businesses will close down or leave. Why would any inte;lliegent person want to be part of a group that is over $16,000,000,000,000.00 in debt, and with no end in sight. Are you relying on BHO to have a plan?
That's about as meaningful as say you're 800,000 dollars in debt because of the food you're going to eat for the rest of your life. Meaningless statstic.

Yes, I do have to be sure I have enough income to keep me and my family in food, clothing and shelter for the rest of my life. Do you find that odd?
Yes, the reason for the recession is Social Security and Medicare which magically was introduced in 2008.

Then perhaps they should be scrapped if the country can't afford them.
He does submit budgets but a bill outlawing puppy abuse couldn't pass in this Congress.

Or the Senate. The flopeared greenhorn's budget was rejected by everyone, 100% of the commons and 100% of the Senate. But despite these failures, and his defiance of the Constitution, a majority of the American electorate still love him and in the ongoing spirit of solidarity, will blames his ineptness on George Bush.

President Obama's budget suffered a second embarrassing defeat Wednesday, when senators voted 99-0 to reject it.

Coupled with the House's rejection in March, 414-0, that means Mr. Obama's budget has failed to win a single vote in support this year.
 
Back
Top Bottom